To improve the performance of our website, show the most relevant news products and targeted advertising, we collect technical impersonal information about you, including through the tools of our partners. You can find a detailed description of how we use your data in our Privacy Policy. For a detailed description of the technologies, please see the Cookie and Automatic Logging Policy.

By clicking on the "Accept & Close" button, you provide your explicit consent to the processing of your data to achieve the above goal.

You can withdraw your consent using the method specified in the Privacy Policy.

A subsidiary of Russia’s giant Rosneft energy company has appealed a US court judgment ordering payment of $186 million to Yukos Capital.

MOSCOW, January 28 (RAPSI, Ingrid Burke) – A subsidiary of Russia’s giant Rosneft energy company has appealed a US court judgment ordering payment of $186 million to Yukos Capital, according to court documents obtained by the RAPSI legal news service.

Samaraneftegaz argued that the judgment ignored Russian law in granting recognition and enforcement of the arbitration award to the subsidiary of the now defunct Yukos oil company once owned by Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who was released after 10 years in prison in December.

The dispute revolves around two July 2004 loan agreements, which provided for the arbitration of disputes in Russia and under Russian law, as well as November 2005 addenda to the agreements that provided for arbitration in New York’s International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) under New York law, according to a recent order.

In August, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted a request by Yukos Capital for summary judgment in its efforts to seek enforcement of an arbitration award it had earlier won in the ICC against Samaraneftegaz.

A supplemental judgment in early October, linked to the August judgment, ordered Rosneft to pay $185,907,785.41 plus interest to Yukos Capital.

Yukos Capital filed a memo in late October requesting that a US federal court order Samaraneftegaz to satisfy the judgment.

On January 9, the district court ordered Samaraneftegaz to turn over assets in order to satisfy the judgment, and to refrain from paying dividends, making loans, or providing other such payments to shareholders or corporate affiliates until either the judgment was satisfied or a bond posted pending appeal.

Samaraneftegaz raised several issues on appeal in a brief filed Friday with the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. It argued that the district court had found that the relevant factors weighed in favor of dismissal based on forum non conveniens, but had declined to dismiss on this basis.

Forum non conveniens is a legal doctrine that allows a court to decline jurisdiction if a case would be more properly litigated elsewhere.

The appeal claimed that the district court “abused its discretion,” as it should have dismissed the case rather than retaining it.

It also argued that the district court erred in accepting jurisdiction over Samaraneftegaz based on the addenda to the arbitration claim, saying that the addenda were “void as a matter of Russian law.”

It raised several points that would put the legality of the document at odds with Russian law before asserting that each such factor was “sufficient to render the Addenda void under Russian law, which eliminates the basis for personal jurisdiction. In ruling to the contrary, the district court ignored or misapplied Russian law.”

Samaraneftegaz then asserted that the district court erred by failing to issue estoppel to facts that had been found in related Russian proceedings. Collateral estoppel is a legal doctrine that bars a party from re-litigating issues that have already been dealt with.

The gas company also complained that it had not been properly notified of key stages during the course of the arbitration proceedings.

It argued that enforcing the award would also violate US public policy. The appellant asserts: “Yukos Capital’s ‘loans’ to Samaraneftegaz were no credit extension at all: Yukos Capital merely cycled Samaraneftegaz’s own funds back to it, solely to evade taxes and insulate Yukos Oil from liability.”

The gas company notes that US case law encourages the interest of the courts in aiding foreign countries with their tax investigations.

Samaraneftegaz also alleged that conversion of the award from Russian rubles into US dollars was erroneous in and of itself, and that an improper exchange rate had been used that resulted in the amount of the award being increased by 25 percent.

It said that the court had used the exchange rate current on the date of the arbitration award, rather than the one current on the date of the judgment.

Samaraneftegaz argued that the January 9 order had been granted without addressing its concerns, although it had opposed Yukos’ turnover motion. It explained: “Samaraneftegaz opposed that motion because using Russian assets as requested would expose Samaraneftegaz’s employees to criminal liability in Russia and because the motion was contrary to principles of comity and the framework of the New York Convention.”

Samaraneftegaz is Rosneft’s second largest oil and gas production unit. Yukos Capital is a Luxembourg-based subsidiary of the now defunct Yukos Oil Company.

By clicking the "Post" button, you provide your explicit consent to the processing of your Facebook account data to enable you to comment to the news on our website using this account. You can find a detailed description of how we use your data in our Privacy Policy.

By checking this box, you provide your explicit consent to the processing of your personal data to create an account on the Sputnik website for posting comments to news. You can find a detailed description of how we use your data in our Privacy Policy.
You can withdraw your consent by using the feedback form or the method specified in the Privacy Policy.

* All fields are required

Please confirm your e-mail to continue. Confirmation instructions have been sent to

Hello,
!

We are committed to protecting your personal information and we have updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), a new EU regulation that went into effect on May 25, 2018.

Please review our Privacy Policy. It contains details about the types of data we collect, how we use it, and your data protection rights.

Since you already shared your personal data with us when you created your personal account, to continue using it, please check the box below:

I agree to the processing of my personal data for the purpose of creating a personal account on this site, in compliance with the Privacy Policy.

If you do not want us to continue processing your data, please click here to delete your account.

promotes the use of narcotic / psychotropic substances, provides information on their production and use;

contains links to viruses and malicious software;

is part of an organized action involving large volumes of comments with identical or similar content ("flash mob");

“floods” the discussion thread with a large number of incoherent or irrelevant messages;

violates etiquette, exhibiting any form of aggressive, humiliating or abusive behavior ("trolling");

doesn’t follow standard rules of the English language, for example, is typed fully or mostly in capital letters or isn’t broken down into sentences.

The administration has the right to block a user’s access to the page or delete a user’s account without notice if the user is in violation of these rules or if behavior indicating said violation is detected.